ML20078M716
| ML20078M716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1995 |
| From: | Mckee P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9502140257 | |
| Download: ML20078M716 (4) | |
Text
. - _ - _ _.
7590-01 l-l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 94fSSION GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION j
DOCKET NO. 50-219 OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmiission (the Commission) is considering 1ssuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation, (the licensee), for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would change the setpoints of Technical Specification 2.3.D, " Reactor High Pressure, Relief Valve Initiatio{ by increasing the setpoint value by 15 psig for each of the Electromatic Relief Valves (EMRVs) in the Automatic Depressurization System.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated June 15, 1994, as supplemented by letter dated September 23, 1994,.and November 3, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is needed because the "Bourden tube" type pressure switches currently in use at Oyster Creek experience drift, which results in exceeding the existing "as found" setpoint.
Increasing the specified 9502140257 950200 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
4
+
.y.
setpoints by 15 psig will provide for expanding the "as found" tolerance bands.
Increasing these tolerance bands serves to ensure that the setpoints will remain within the Technical Specification requirements over a nominal 24 month operating cycle.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the licensee has provided information supporting the use of a 1.04 multiplier. This multiplier is applied to pool dynamic loads previously calculated for the plant unique analysis report (PUAR), to account for the EMRV setpoint increase and to account for errors in calculations of the PUAR; i
loads due to use of an incorrect EMRV flow rating. The staff has reviewed the licensee's basis for use of the multiplier and finds it acceptable. The staff also finds that the structural analysis of the affected plant components was adequately conservative to demonstrate acceptability of the EMRV setpoint
~
change.
The proposed amendment involves a minor change in the operation of the
]
facility. The change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual si cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commiission concludes that
e s there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with f
the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proolsed Action:
Since the Commissit n has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental imp tct need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staft' considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application would iesult in no change in current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts )f the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
l Alternative Use of Resourc;n i
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final En 'ironmental Statement for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Aaencies and Persons Consu ttfdl In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the New Jersey State official regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officini had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
r.
4 i
i
' l l
l l
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 15, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated September 23, and November 3,1994, which are available for public inspection l
at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Tows River, NJ 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of February 1995.
j FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION s
Phillip F.
Kee, Director
[
Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r
k